Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'SOAP GetSupplier', an implementation detail, and says nothing about not-found behavior or what fields come back.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short fragments with the resource and key front-loaded and zero filler. The phrasing 'One supplier by its...' is slightly clipped/awkward but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It still leaves the agent guessing about the returned representation and error case for an unknown code.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single required supplier_code parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, casing, or lookup-failure semantics beyond the schema text, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (supplier) plus the lookup key (KashFlow supplier code), which distinguishes it from create_supplier and list_suppliers. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'By its KashFlow supplier code' implies you must already have a code, which hints at when this applies versus a listing call, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as kashflow_list_suppliers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.